1. The instant revision application is directed against the order dated 20.3.2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court-VI, Saharsa in Sessions Trial No. 82 of 2002 whereby he allowed the petition dated 20.7.2006 filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and ordered to issue non-bailable warrant of arrest against the petitioner to face trial. The petitioner assails the aforesaid order on the ground that it amounts to reviewing and recalling its earlier order dated 18.1.2006 on the same set of evidence not summoning the petitioner to face trial.

2. Before I address the main ground taken by the petitioner in support of his contention, it would be necessary to notice the facts of the case in brief. One Chandeshwari Mukhiya, Opposite Party No. 2, is the informant of Sonebarsa P.S. Case No. 23 of 2000 under Sections 147, 148, 149, 447, 323, 324, 325, 326 of the Penal Code. He alleged that Bino Yadav (petitioner) made an objection, while he was passing from in front of his house on 18.3.2000 at about 7.30 P.M. The informant replied that it is a public path and any one is free to pass through it. This led to a hot exchange of words between the informant and Bino Yadav, the petitioner. Soon thereafter four persons namely Lahsan Yadav, Mahelar Yadav, Rajo Yadav and Pawan Yadav came to his house armed with lathi, danda, bow and arrow. They charged the informant with their weapons causing injuries to him. One Chandrakala Devi, sister of informant too was assaulted by the aforesaid accused persons with arrow when she tried to intervene. The police after investigation submitted final report not sending the petitioner for trial.

3. The cognizance of offence was taken and accused persons who were charge-sheeted were summoned to face trial. Thereafter the case was committed to the court of sessions, charges were framed and two witnesses namely P.W. 1 (Chandrakala Devi) and P.W. 2, the informant, Chandeshwari Mukhiya were examined on 3.7.2004 and 8.12.2004 respectively.

4. Thereafter the informant (Opposite Party No. 2) filed a petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. for summoning the petitioner to face trial as the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2 in trial would show that the petitioner also committed offence. However, the learned P.P. pleaded that no order need be passed at this stage on the aforesaid petition and order, if any, be passed after some more witnesses are examined in the case. The learned trial court after hearing the parties disposed of the aforesaid petition in terms of submissions made by learned P.P.

5. It is relevant to point out here that it was very much open for learned court to reject the prayer of learned P.P. and summon the petitioner to face trial as well, which he did not consider appropriate at that stage. Neither the informant nor the P.P. seemed aggrieved as no one challenged the aforesaid order in superior courts.

6. Thereafter again on 20.7.2006, on same set of evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2, a petition was filed on behalf of prosecution praying therein to summon the petitioner Bino Yadav to face trial in view of evidence appearing in depositions of P.Ws. 1 and 2.

7. The learned trial court by order dated 20.3.2007 after hearing the parties allowed the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. and issued non-bailable warrant of arrest against the accused Bino Yadav, who was not earlier charge-sheeted and summoned to face trial. The petitioner aggrieved by the aforesaid order has moved this court.

8. The main ground urged by learned counsel for the petitioner is that the trial court or for that matter a Court of Magistrate or that of Sessions have no jurisdiction to review its own order. He submits that the impugned order dated 20.3.2007 allowing petition under Section 319 Cr.P.C. amounts to reviewing or recalling its own order dated 18.1.2006, whereby similar application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was not allowed by the trial court on same set of evidence. He submits that the order dated 18.